MICHAEL M. McMAHILL v. W. Echendu;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL M. McMAHILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W. ECHENDU; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56620
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-07188-AHM-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael M. McMahill, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations
of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure
FILED
JAN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-56620 2
to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any
ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because McMahill’s factual
allegations and the attachments to the operative complaint show that defendants
did not act with deliberate indifference to his medical problems. See Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with
deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to the prisoner’s health and safety, and negligence and a mere difference in medical
opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); Nat’l Assoc. for the
Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049
(9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “we may consider facts contained in documents
attached to the complaint” in determining whether the complaint states a claim for
relief).
McMahill’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --